Prove that if we have two quadratic function $f(x)$ and $g(x)$ such that $|f(x)| >|g(x)|$, then $|\Delta_f|>|\Delta_g| $. I'm looking for hints, I've no idea where should I start. Thanks in advance...
-
You missed the other part of the absolute value bars around $f(x)$ in the assumption. [Just being picky,,,] – coffeemath Sep 17 '15 at 15:56
-
Corrected it. Sorry. My mistake. – Sep 17 '15 at 15:58
-
Have you tried triangle inequality? – John Molokach Sep 18 '15 at 00:30
-
I have no idea how triangle inequality could be applied to this problem. – Sep 18 '15 at 03:58
-
1@hetjar Please see my revised answer. My previous "counterexample" was false, and now I think I have a proof, though maybe sketchy, of your statement. Hopefully you can fill in any missing steps (or mention any gaps in the reasoning), but let me know if you'd like some details filled in. – coffeemath Sep 19 '15 at 22:13
1 Answers
NOTE I previously had up an erroneous "counterexample" But I now think the statement is true, and sketch here a proof.
Let the two quadratics be $p,q$ for which $|p(x)|>|q(x)|$ for all $x.$ Then we are trying to show $|\Delta_p|>|\Delta_q|$ for the two discriminants. Here $p$ can have no zeros, else if $p(r)=0$ then $0=|p(r)|>|q(r)|,$ not possible. Any replacement of $x$ by $x+h$, i.e. a shift of $x$ coordinates, has no effect on the hypothesis, and also has no effect on the discriminants, as may be checked. So we may assume things are centered so that the vertex of $p$ is at $x=0.$ So far we have the magnitude of $p(x),$ which we also call $p(x),$ is $kx^2+r,$ where $k,r>0$ [recall here p has no zeros and is positive.]
We would also like to scale each quadratic by multiplying by $m>0$ which changes $p$ to $mkx^2+mr$, and now set $(mk)(mr)=1$ to get $m^2=1/(kr),$ solvable with $m>0$ since $k,r>0.$ Using this multiplier $m$ we now have $p$ in the form $p(x)=ax^2+1/a.$ This rescaling by $m$ does not change inequalities on magnitudes of $p,q$ nor inequalities on their discriminants.
The usual discriminant of $ax^2+2bx+c$ is $4(b^2-ac),$ but from here we'll drop the factor $4$ and so use $b^2-ac$ for discriminants (keeping in mind to have the $x$ coefficient as $2b$) This said, the discriminant of $p$ is now $\Delta_p=-1.$ [I just find the extra 4 annoying.] Again this dropping of the factor 4 has no effect on comparing discriminant magnitudes.
Now let $q(x)=b(x-h)^2+c$ which has discriminant $\Delta_q=-bc$ (independent of $h$). The magnitude of $p$ which is now $p$ itself, can never equal that of either $q$ or $-q,$ else if it does at some $x=r$ we would have $|p(r)|=|q(r)|$ against the hypothesis. We need not consider the case $c=0,$ since then $\Delta_q=0<|\Delta_p|=1$ as desired. So the discriminant of $q$ is nonzero, and we can separate into two cases. In the first (easier) case $\Delta_q<0$ the quadratic $q$ has no zeros, and so its magnitude (which we also call $q$) may be expressed using $b,c>0$ in $q(x)=b(x-h)^2+c.$ When multiplied out,
$$q(x)=bx^2-2bhx+(bh^2+c). \tag{1}$$ Here $|q(0)|=bh^2+c<|p(0)|=1/a.$ In particular we have, since $b>0$, that $c<1/a.$ Now if we consider things for large $x$ we can get also $b \le a.$ To see this, divide each of $p,q$ by $x^2$ to get from the assumption to $$a+\frac{1}{ax^2} >b-\frac{2bh}{x}+\frac{bh^2+c}{x^2.}.$$ As $x \to \infty$ this relation implies $a \ge b.$ We now have both $b\le a$ and $c<1/a$ and may conclude that $bc<1.$ Since here $|\Delta_q|=|-bc|=bc<1=|\Delta_p|$ this finishes the case where $q$ has no zeros.
In the remaining case $q$ has two zeros, and its discriminant $\Delta_q=-bc>0.$ From what has been said already, there cannot be any intersection between $p$ and $q$ or between $p$ and $-q.$ If we use (1) to compute $p-q$ the resulting discriminant is $$ abh^2+ac+b/a-bc-1,$$ while the discriminant of $p-(-q)=p+q$ is the similar looking
$$-(abh^2+ac+b/a)-bc-1.$$ For the nonintersections mentioned, each of these discriminants need to be negative. This implies that $$|abh^2+ac+b/a|<bc+1.$$ Then we have $bc+1>0,$ i.e. $-bc<1,$ which since in the present case $|\Delta_q|=-bc$ (which is positive for this case) gives what is required in this case wherein $q$ has two zeros. (Note the single zero case has $\Delta_q=0$ already mentioned.
- 29,884
- 2
- 31
- 52
-
-
Anyone who already read this answer: Note it is now completely revised, since the "counterexample" from before was not one at all. :-( – coffeemath Sep 19 '15 at 22:15